Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

`Infant beheadings, severed baby feet,' but media still ignoring Gosnell trial

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 146 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Apr 2013 23:23:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 Apr 2013 23:32:55 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 13 Apr 2013 23:37:30 BDT
Is there any particular reason why you think your latest rant against the right to choose is going to succeed, where all the others have failed so miserably...?

Posted on 14 Apr 2013 08:38:03 BDT
Garscadden says:
Is she expecting anyone to suggest this nutter is doing the correct thing?

This happened because abortion was deregulated. The clinic hadn't been inspected since 1993. He was investigated by the FBI and DEA the year before he was eventually stopped. He had had civil cases raised against him that were dropped.

This seems to show two things:
1 - deregulate abortion and really nasty things happen
2 - American society is just broken

This 'dcotors' clients were mostly those in need. If abortion is made illegal more of this kind of horror will happen.

But - the man was caught breaking the law, is being charged with murder, conspiracy, criminal solicitation. Apart from he should have been stopped sooner, the law is working as it should.

Tom -
Do you think all abortionists are murderers?
Do you think Gosnell is typical of abortionists?
Did you realise that Gosnell had been refused membership to the National Abortion Federation because of lacking standards of care (and apparently they had cleaned the place up and only performed legal abortions during that check)?
Do you think the Republican, 'family values', party were right to pass a law that meant facilities didn't need to be investigated (effectively deregulating abortion)?

I don't know about the US media, but this has been reported in the UK.

It seems odd that the fox network, a renowned right wing apparatus, hasn't picked up on this and made a huge fuss. (except i see from their website they have been reporting on this).

Considering a partisan media could lay the blame for this on the republicans it seems strange that MSNBC isn't reporting this. (except i see from their website that they are)

As everyone says, it seems strange that CNN aren't reporting this. (except they are)

It seems strange that Philadelphia newspapers aren't reporting this. (I don't really know what newspapers are published in Philadelphia, but this is front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer, it is reported on, which seems to be an adjunct of the Inquirer and Daily News).

So - there seems to be a lot of noise about a media blackout. And no media blackout.

Don't you think this is a bit odd? What people mean is that they think this should be receiving more news coverage, which is maybe what they should say.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 08:47:12 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Abortionists like Fatman who posts here do, in third trimester abortions, but while carefully keeping the head inside the vagina, jam surgical scissors into the living baby's brain through the small opening at the top of the spine. They hold the baby's squirming body in the other hand as they kill him or her. This small technicality of keeping the head inside the vagina prevents abortionists from being lableled murderers."
No it doesn't, Gosnell is on trial for murder and unethical practices because he did such things. Your Catholic source once again gives you all you need to be outraged but no information that would help inform you of the situation or allow you to form your own opinion. It spends far too long on how it wants it to be front page news but hardly any content is given over to what the charges are and it doesn't point out that the practices Gosnell performed are illegal and what has put him on trial (as you show). It leaves people, were they so inclined, to think this is what abortionists do and they get away with it - and nothing could be further from the truth.

"Please remember to keep the baby's head inside the vagina so we don't have to see ourselves as complicit in murder."
Do you honestly believe that makes a valid legal defence against the murder charge and will permissible?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 09:38:57 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
At least now this has been reported and brought out into the open - it has made the public aware of the possible dangers of illegal abortions, which can only help improve standards and the safety and care of women needing an abortion.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 09:54:53 BDT
C. A. Small says:
And banning abortion and sending underground to the back streets will help will it? You cretin.

Women have the right to choose, and abortion should be legally available in regulated , safe, properly run and authorised clinics.

Posted on 14 Apr 2013 10:20:42 BDT
Charlieost says:
Well that's Tom M put back in his box for a while again at least. No so remarkable how anti-abortion groups ignore the circumstances to shove the horror in your face. damn that Counter Reformation. C

Posted on 14 Apr 2013 13:48:25 BDT
Garscadden says:
I was thinking some more about this.

I think abortion is a personal choice. I think there is a point after which abortion shouldn't be carried out, except under special circumstances (danger to mother and child for example), but i don't know what that point is - there seems to be a generally accepted term, which I'm guessing is reasonable. As per another discussion - maybe birth defects should be allowed later term abortions. But the point is, I don't have a problem with abortions, in general.

Tom does, as do some (? all? most?), catholics.

Tom - this is an honest question, and i actually am interested in the answer. I assume you think all abortion is murder. I get that, fair enough. Do you think contraception is? Is there a moral difference between wearing a condom and taking the birth control pill (as far as not conceiving is concerned)? What about the morning after pill?

Is murder ever morally acceptable? (Wars, death sentences etc).

Is accidental death morally as bad as intentional murder?

I suspect you won't answer, but I honestly am interested.

For me - all murder is morally equivalent, and wrong - death sentence, wars, killing to save oneself and ones family. It is all morally repugnant. There may be times when we do these things regardless of moral implications, but i still think they are wrong. I don't see abortion as murder though. I say this expecting you think this is morally completely unacceptable. I understand that, that's not the point.

I'd just appreciate seeing where you think murder / death is acceptable.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 17:33:59 BDT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 17:58:00 BDT
Garscadden says:
For me? Yes it would be okay. I don't really see what difference seeing the embryo through a window should make to my moral stance, but yeah, I think it is okay to abort a baby, therefore i also think it is okay if you can see it happen.

Maybe people should be shown video's of babies being aborted before being allowed to do so? And video of a woman in labour - my sister in law was in labour for a couple of days - I suspect that would balance out the abortion video. A friends mother was a mid-wife, in a local school she ran a scheme where they would show videos of child birth, and interviews with newly nursing mothers. Pregnancy rates dropped significantly. I believe the same happened in US schools when kids had to look after those fake babies, didn't it?

As i say - I don't have a problem with abortions.

Presumably you do. I guess the same question applies. Do you have a moral issue with contraception? Are the pill, condoms and morning after pill all equally moral / immoral?

Posted on 14 Apr 2013 19:23:57 BDT
Spin says:
Artificial, intentionally induced abortion of a child, as a means of contraception and as a means for obtaining material for scientific research, is supremely immoral. The inhumanity and horror of such action is quite indescribable.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 19:34:46 BDT
DB says:

If you don't have a problem with killing babies in the womb, why do you have a problem killing babies outside the womb?

Isn't the only difference geography?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 19:40:22 BDT
Garscadden says:
Spin - from your perspective is it acceptable under any circumstances?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 19:42:39 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Apr 2013 19:42:56 BDT
Garscadden says:
Possibly. It's odd, I thought I had admitted this. But yeah. I think murder post birth is wrong, pre-birth I have no problem with it.

But really - would you answer my questions? I asked them in good faith.

I thought I provided enough information for you to know that you find my views reprehensible. I didn't realise you would need them confirmed, but hey. I was telling the truth.

Posted on 14 Apr 2013 19:44:06 BDT
Anytime today, Tom...

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 19:56:53 BDT
Spin says:
Gars: As I have stated on other threads, I believe abortion is justified if, and only if, the life of the mother is threatened or the future life of the child involves unavoidable and intolerable pain or suffering. The decision of the mother to abort her child in favour of her life cannot be condemned, nor can the decision to prevent a life of suffering. I object to abortion as a means of contraception; a "quick-fix". The question as to whether abortion is justified as a means of rectifying the crime of "Rape" is a more complex issue depending, I believe, on a number of factors. I personally do not agree with it, for a number of scientific and moral reasons, but I can understand why it would be advocated.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:04:25 BDT
Garscadden says:
Thank you for answering.

Do you think the pill, or the morning after pill, are okay? When does the life begin? Also - the other part - do you think killing at other times can be justified?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:10:59 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Spin - can you clarify the number of factors regarding the rape issue? It would make sense of your argument. Also the scientific and moral reasons would be helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:12:03 BDT
Spin says:
Gars; The pill prevents the meeting of egg and sperm, so no life is extinguished. Further, some women take the pill primarily to regulate their periods, not as a contraception. The morning after pill, on the other hand, extinguishes life formed by the meeting of egg and sperm. As for your question concerning "killing at other times", I do not know what you mean by that.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:16:24 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
'Gars; The pill prevents the meeting of egg and sperm, so no life is extinguished. '

Spin - the possibility of life is extinguished, which is why the Catholic Church is against all forms of contraception.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:22:29 BDT
DB says:

what is the difference between killing a 23 wk old baby in the womb and a 23 wk old baby outside the womb.
Why do you support one and object to the other?

I have mixed feelings about your question.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:25:47 BDT
Spin says:
K; Well, take that up with the church. I personally do not object to contraception; I object only to certain methods of contraception. And those objections are based on the existence, not the "possibility", of Life.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:34:11 BDT
Garscadden says:
DB - i thought i had explained my position. Are you willing to explain yours?.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:35:43 BDT
Garscadden says:
Killing at other times - war, self defence, defence of a loved one, death sentence for crimes. Or accidental death in circumstances where it could have been prevented - speeding, drunk driving and similar.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2013 20:50:12 BDT
Spin says:
Gars: I do not agree with the intentional, pre-meditated taking of life unless the consequences of allowing that life to proceed will cause more pain and suffering than if it was extinguished. But I do not thus advocate the taking of a life as the only solution; I hesitantly and sorrowfully advocate the intentional taking of life only as a last resort, where there is no other choice or option available. As for "Accidental death", be it beneficial or detrimental, such events have nothing to do with sentient being; they are up to chance or God.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  146
Initial post:  13 Apr 2013
Latest post:  21 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions